IFE PAN EVELOPMENTAL THEORY

03-Chibucos.qxd 11/16/2004 5:33 PM Page 39

3

LIFE-SPAN DEVELOPMENTAL THEORY

L ife-span developmental theory concerns the study of individual development, or ontogenesis, from conception to death. A key assumption of this theory is that development does not cease when adulthood is reached (Baltes, Lindenberger, & Staudinger, 1998, p. 1029)1. Life-span researchers and theorists assume that each major period of life has its own developmental challenges and accomplishments, and that adaptive processes are at work within all periods of the life span. This theoretical approach is clearly focused on individual development rather than on family development. It is concerned with comparing an individual's development with that of others and with the individual's own status at various points in time. We include it in this volume on family theories for several reasons.

First, since the purview of the theory is "womb to tomb," it of necessity touches upon all of the family-related issues that characterize family life course theory, such as the birth of a child, the development of Alzheimer's disease, the macro-level political and economic slings and arrows that impact both individuals and families--the latter impacted either directly or indirectly through one or more of its members.

Of course, as noted, regardless of its study of development across the human life span, the focus is still on individuals rather than groups, and this makes the theory decidedly distinct from the family life course perspective that focuses on the family as the unit of analysis.

Second, we believe that this approach has much to teach others within subdisciplines of the family and human development sciences. For example, this theoretical approach is exceptionally rigorous in the way it links theory with methodology across the life span (you'll get a taste of this from the two readings we have selected for this chapter) as well as in the breadth of substantive issues that are studied ontogenetically. In addition, it has progressed from a largely descriptive focus on developmental stages (predominant 40?50 years ago) to a more recent focus (beginning in the 1970s) on trying to determine the mechanisms that determine developmental change or consistency. (Family life course theory is undergoing a similar transition as it has evolved from an emphasis on the family life cycle to a more comprehensive commitment to examining the causes of family development and change [cf. Chapter 3; Elder, 1996; White & Klein, 2002].) Overall, for the

39

03-Chibucos.qxd 11/16/2004 5:33 PM Page 40

40 ? READINGS IN FAMILY THEORY

reasons mentioned as well as because it passes with flying colors most tests (White & Klein, 2002, p. 232, Table 9.1) of how to evaluate a theory's usefulness, life-span developmental theory can serve as an important model for new students as well as for scholars.

What does it mean to say that the focus of life-span developmental theory and research is the individual? Given the identification of a substantive focus (e.g., personality development or cognitive abilities), this approach aims to study one or more of the following things:

1. Normative developmental change (For example, what is the typical course of personality development, or of cognitive capabilities? What are the mechanisms for this typical course of development or developmental change?)

2. Interindividual differences in developmental change (For example, are there differences between people over time, within age periods or across age periods, in their outgoingness or in their visual acuity? What are the mechanisms that produce such differences between people?)

3. Intraindividual change and consistency in development (For example, what is the course of development for self-esteem or for the tendency to take personal risks? Are these things consistent in individuals over time or are they characterized by "plasticity"? [Developmental plasticity is a general term used in the study of ontogeny to indicate how malleable or changeable something is.] What are the mechanisms producing consistency or change?)

It is important to note that these three emphases apply to individual periods of the life span (e.g., infancy, adolescence, or old age) as well as to the life span as a whole. In asking the above questions, one also begins to get a flavor of the kinds of methodological implications of life-span developmental theory. How does one investigate developmental plasticity or consistency? Does one compare, say, a group of 9-year-olds with a group of 23-year-olds to see if interindividual changes in cognitive functioning

occur? Or, does one follow longitudinally the development of cognitive functioning over a protracted period of time? Further, if one substitutes the word family or families for people or individuals in the above questions, it becomes clear that life-span developmental theory and family life course theory are both fundamentally time-related theoretical approaches. (Do note, however, that time is really just a shorthand descriptor for all that happens during it. Like age, it doesn't explain anything.) This developmental perspective--what happens and why, over time--is an integral part of both conceptualizations, and it is one thing that distinguishes them from the other theoretical perspectives in this book. Although some of the other theories (e.g., social learning theory or social exchange theory) may imply or make assumptions about change over time, the concept of developmental change is not an integral component of these other perspectives.

THE READINGS

Schoon et al. (2002) use the life-span developmental perspective in combination with concepts from ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Chapter 10) and developmental contextualism (Ford & Lerner, 1992) to examine the relationships between early and continuing social risk and academic achievement in childhood/ adolescence as well as between earlier risk and adult attainments. Developmental contextualism views human development as the dynamic interaction between a changing individual and a changing context. This reading uses fairly complex data analysis procedures (path analysis and multiple regression) to explicate a complex development trajectory over a significant portion of the life span. (You can safely ignore the statistical details since the article's text is very clear in stating what the analyses mean and how they can be interpreted.) Another key feature of the Schoon et al. reading is what we mentioned earlier in this chapter: the link between theoretical perspective and methodological choices. In

03-Chibucos.qxd 11/16/2004 5:33 PM Page 41

Life-Span Developmental Theory ? 41

this case, data were collected on the same individuals (longitudinal study) across a significant period of the life span to answer the specific research questions that the researchers had formulated. Without longitudinal data, the researchers' questions would not be as adequately addressed.

The other reading in this chapter concerns the longitudinal impact of change or continuity in marital status on the psychological well-being of adults (Marks & Lambert, 1998). The researchers' perspective on this issue is guided by both the life-span developmental and the family life course theories, which (as we have said previously) maintain that it is important to examine the sequelae of discontinuities and continuities throughout life, not just in early childhood. In their study, Marks and Lambert reflect on important life-span developmental concepts including the timing and sequence of life events, the context in which certain developmental outcomes occur (e.g., it is much less atypical in 2004 than it was in 1964 to be a divorced adult), and the developmental readiness of individuals to deal with positive and potentially negative change.

Note that, besides the overall theoretical approach, Marks and Lambert's research shares two features with Schoon et al. First, the use of longitudinal data to answer developmental questions was appropriately employed. Second, the analysis of these longitudinal data was, again, complex. We would urge you to examine the various data presentations, but not to be overwhelmed by them since the text is very clear in explaining things. Also, if you suspect a trend here--that longitudinal data require more complex statistical techniques--you are correct. But, the payoff is much greater when such data and analyses are employed in developmental research. They allow more direct answers to the research questions, which in turn allow more direct tests of theory (i.e., explanation and understanding of results). The nature of the data (same people over time) and the analyses take into account many possibly influential variables and connections

among variables in a way that pays specific attention to sequencing and timing. This is simply not possible with nonlongitudinal (i.e., crosssectional) information. This is another example of the usefulness of life-span developmental theory to guide research.

ISSUES FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

1. Do you think developmental contextualism might be a useful concept for family life course theory? (Hint: The answer is "yes!") Why? How could it be integrated into the family life course perspective?

2. Discuss an individual developmental issue for a nonadult (any age under 18) that would likely impact the child's family and its functioning in positive or negative ways. Then, from the other direction, consider some discontinuity in family life that would be likely to impact one or more of the family's members. What theories might help you explain these impacts?

3. How do you think of different periods in the life span? Do you see them as preparatory for something later, as self-contained, or as being the result of earlier periods? If you had to make a guess, what are the relative degrees of continuity and discontinuity that might be normative across the life span? What do the readings in this chapter have to say about the last question?

FURTHER READING

Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1994), Ford and Lerner (1992).

Note

1. This chapter relies extensively on Baltes, Lindenberger, and Staudinger (1998), and Goulet and Baltes (1970).

03-Chibucos.qxd 11/16/2004 5:33 PM Page 42

THE INFLUENCE OF CONTEXT, TIMING, AND DURATION OF RISK EXPERIENCES FOR THE PASSAGE FROM CHILDHOOD TO MIDADULTHOOD

INGRID SCHOON, JOHN BYNNER, HEATHER JOSHI, SAMANTHA PARSONS, RICHARD D. WIGGINS, AND AMANDA SACKER

Abstract

Introduction

This study investigated the long-term effects of social disadvantage on academic achievement and on subsequent attainments in adulthood. The study drew on data collected for more than 30,000 individuals born 12 years apart, following their development from birth to adulthood. The pathways that link social disadvantage to individual development across the life course were analyzed in a developmental? contextual systems model. The results showed that the influence of risk factors associated with socioeconomic disadvantage depended on the developmental stage of the individual, the experience of long-term or continuous disadvantage, and the overall sociohistorical context. Early risk had a moderate influence on the formation of individual competences. The greatest risk was associated with persisting and accumulating experiences of socioeconomic disadvantage throughout childhood and adolescence. Material conditions improved for the later-born cohort, yet pervasive social inequalities existed that affected outcomes during childhood and were consequently reflected in adult attainment.

Children raised in socioeconomically disadvantaged families are at risk for a variety of adjustment problems, including increased risk for poor academic achievement (Bolger, Patterson, & Thompson, 1995; Campbell & Ramey, 1994; Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1994; Felner et al., 1995; Pungello, Kupersmidt, Burchinal, & Patterson, 1996; Ramey & Ramey, 1990; Walker, Greenwood, Hart, & Carta, 1994) and adjustment problems in later life, as reflected in occupational attainment or social position (Blau & Duncan, 1967; Bynner, Joshi, & Tsatsas, 2000; Caspi, Wright, Moffitt, & Silva, 1998; Rutter & Madge, 1976; Schoon & Parsons, 2002b; Sewell, Hailer, & Ohlendorf, 1970). Socioeconomic background is one of the main predictors of cognitive development, which provides the underpinnings of academic achievement on which much success in later life depends. The experience of socioeconomic disadvantage may severely strain adaptational abilities of children, and is thus a potential risk factor for development. The consequences of growing up in a disadvantaged family environment can continue into adulthood or even into the next generation (Birch & Gussow, 1970;

42

03-Chibucos.qxd 11/16/2004 5:33 PM Page 43

Life-Span Developmental Theory ? 43

Garmezy, 1991). Yet, most research on the influence of socioeconomic disadvantage on developmental outcomes has been cross-sectional in nature, and has assessed the impact of episodic rather than persistent economic difficulties. The aim of this study was to examine the long-term effects of socioeconomic disadvantage on academic achievement and consequent adult attainments. Taking a longitudinal perspective stretching from birth to adulthood, this study examined the impact of early and persistent social disadvantage (which was termed "social risk") on academic achievement during childhood and adolescence and on adult outcomes in a developmentalcontextual framework.

Fundamental to the idea of risk is the predictability of life changes from earlier circumstances. As expressed through the concept of a "risk trajectory," one risk factor reinforces another, leading to increasingly restricted outcomes in later life (Rutter, 1990). In this study the question of the relation between early life experiences and consequent adjustment patterns was recast in terms of a testable model of continuities in social disadvantage and individual adjustment and their interactions over time. By analyzing data from two cohorts of children born in 1958 and 1970, the investigation also took into account the changing sociohistorical context.

Development and Context

The processes by which the socioeconomic background influences individual development are not yet fully understood. It has been argued that socioeconomic status (SES) at the time of the child's birth is an indicator of the social context, but may also reflect parental genetic characteristics, which are assumed to have some role in determining the level of academic functioning of their children (Plomin & Bergeman, 1991; Plomin & McClearn, 1993; Scarr, 1992). Proponents of behavioral genetics see the course of human development as a function of genetically controlled maturational sequences (Scarr, 1992). However, findings show that in no case is the

genetic determination so strong that there is no room for environmental effects (Plomin & Daniels, 1987; Scarr, 1992). There is now increasing skepticism about the usefulness of approaches formulated within behavioral genetics, on scientific as well as social and ethical grounds (Baumrind, 1993; Hoffman, 1994; Jackson, 1993; Lerner & von Eye, 1992). Human development takes place in a social context, and is therefore influenced by a person's interactions within that context. Genetic factors are only one of a much larger series of possible explanations for human behavior. More recent developmental approaches have conceptualized genes and other biological variables as contributors to reciprocal, dynamic processes that can only be fully understood in relation to sociocultural environmental contexts (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Gottlieb, Wahlsten, & Lickliter, 1998; Horowitz, 2000). Human beings differ in their capacity for realizing individual talents, and it is important to understand under what circumstances individual potentials find expression.

This study was not designed to examine the heritability of certain traits, but rather to investigate the long-term effects of social risk on academic attainment and consequent adult outcomes in a changing sociohistorical context. Especially useful for this type of analysis are approaches developed by proponents of an ecological perspective of the life course that conceptualizes human development as the dynamic interaction between a changing individual and a changing context (Baltes, 1987; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Elder, 1985; Featherman & Lerner, 1985; Lerner, 1984, 1996; Sameroff, 1983). For example, in their bioecological theory of nature-nurture effects, Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1994) argue that the long-term interactions between children and their environments are a necessary condition for the expression of any trait. They differentiate between the proximal environment, which is directly experienced by the individual (e.g., the family environment), and more distal cultural and social value systems that have an indirect effect on the individual, and are often mediated by the more proximal context. Proximal

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download